Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0136, written 11 Mar 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 11 Mar 2025 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2025-0136 |
| Deceased | Luke Barnes |
| Coroner | Susan Ridge |
| Coroner area | Surrey |
| Category | Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
IN THE SURREY CORONER’S COURT IN THE MATTER OF: __________________________________________________________ The Inquest Touching the Death of Luke Harry Brockwell Barnes A Regulation 28 Report – Action to Prevent Future Deaths __________________________________________________________ 1 THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: Chief Probation Officer HMPPS 2 CORONER Ms Susan Ridge, H.M. Assistant Coroner for Surrey 3 CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS I make this report under paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 5 to The Coroners and Justice Act 2009. 4 INQUEST An inquest into Mr Barnes death was opened on 14 May 2024. The inquest was resumed and concluded on 16 December 2024 with further submissions in respect of Regulation 28 matters received on 29 January 2025 and 5 March 2025. The medical cause of Mr Barnes’ death was: 1a. toxicity With respect to where, when and how Mr Barnes came by his death it was recorded at Box 3 of the Record of Inquest as follows: Luke Harry Brockwell BARNES was found dead at his home in Cobham on 9 February 2024. He had taken sufficient to result in his death from toxicity. His death was formally recorded by paramedics at 1134 hours that same day. The inquest concluded with a short form conclusion of ‘Drug related’. 5 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH During the course of the inquest the court heard that Mr Barnes had a diagnosis of autism and a personality disorder with a history of previous convictions. He had long-term drug abuse issues including purchasing drugs online. At the time of his death Mr Barnes was subject to probation service supervision following a short period on licence and a 12 month community order made by Guildford Crown Court, this included a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR). The DRR was not implemented by the probation service. Mr Barnes was referred to a similar programme, which he attended, but which could not require him to undergo regular drug testing. The coroner heard that any such alteration to sentence requires the court itself to review the original sentence. That did not happen in Mr Barnes’ case. Following his arrest in April 2023 Mr Barnes had been referred by Westminster Court Probation Service to the Liaison and Diversion Service at Westminster Magistrates Court for assessment and review. A report was prepared by a specialist practitioner for intellectual disabilities and learning disabilities. That report included insights into his character and behaviour, discussion about his autism and recommendations as to how best to manage Mr Barnes in the future. In June 2023 post sentence probation supervision for Mr Barnes was passed from London to Staines. The court heard that the report prepared by the Liaison and Diversion Service specialist practitioner was not seen by or was not available to probation staff in Staines. 6 CORONER’S CONCERNS The MATTERS OF CONCERN are: a.Probation staff are not always aware of or have access to relevant and/or specialist medical reports prepared for Liaison and Diversion Service and other bodies including mental health providers. Further evidence obtained from HMPPS indicates that reports prepared for Liaison and Diversion Service or mental health service providers by specialist medical practitioners (including learning disability practitioners) may not always be notified to the probation service and that the sharing of such information relies to an extent on ad hoc arrangements. The coroner has been told that this issue has been identified previously in a Serious Further Offences Review. b.Whether there is sufficient training for all frontline probation service staff about neurodiverse conditions and their impact on post sentence supervision. The Court heard from Mr Barnes’ probation practitioner, they had limited awareness of neurodiversity issues as they might affect the supervision of Mr Barnes or probation service policy in this area. Although further evidence from HMPPS confirms that since 2021 all trainee probation officers are required to attend a face-to-face training session on neurodiversity and probation officers and qualified probation officers have training available to them it is not clear if this training is sufficient and for all frontline probation staff. c. That a loophole exists whereby a sentence of the court, not actioned by probation service staff, (in this case a DRR) might not be referred back to the court for review. 7 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that the people listed in paragraph one above have the power to take such action. 8 YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of its date; I may extend that period on request. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for such action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 9 COPIES I have sent a copy of this report to the following: 1. Chief Coroner 2. Mr Barnes family 10 Signed: Susan Ridge H.M Assistant Coroner for Surrey Dated 11 March 2025
1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.
Ms Susan Ridge,
H.M. Assistant Coroner for Surrey
By email only to:
10th June 2025
Dear Madam,
Inquest Touching the Death of Luke Harry Brockwell Barnes
I refer to your Regulation 28 Report following the Inquest into the death of Mr. Barnes and am issuing
this response on behalf of His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS).
I know that you will share a copy of this response with his family, and I would like to take this
opportunity to express my sincere condolences for their loss.
You raised the following concerns –
Probation staff are not always aware of or have access to relevant and/or specialist medical
reports prepared for Liaison and Diversion Service and other bodies including mental health
providers.
Concerns around the lack of universal access for NHS Liaison and Diversion (L&D) services to the
Common Platform used by HM Court & Tribunal Service (HMCTS) has now been raised at Ministerial
level. This has resulted in a review of the access arrangements and, as a result, HMCTS intends to
remove the need for manual handling for the upload of L&D reports to the Common Platform and
DCS as well as other evidence required from Criminal Justice System partners within the sentencing
processes. This should remove the risk of Probation staff not always being aware of or having access
to relevant reports with the Liaison and Diversion Service.
Whether there is sufficient training for all frontline probation service staff about neurodiverse
conditions and their impact on post sentence supervision
All frontline Probation staff have access to training which covers
Neurodiversity – Learning Disabilities and Challenges
Neurodiversity - Brain Injury
Neurodiversity - Autism and ADHD
Diversity and Inclusion Learning and Development
This training is a requirement for all those training to become qualified Probation Officers and
has been since 2021. HMPPS keeps the training it provides to all Probation frontline staff
under review to ensure it is sufficient and current and meets the demands of the work being
undertaken. It is part of the professional responsibility of Probation Practitioners to access
relevant training to meet the diverse needs of those subject to Probation supervision and
ensure that they can comply with the requirements of the Policy Framework for Sentence
Management in the Community.
That a loophole exists whereby a sentence of the court, not actioned by probation
service staff, (in this case a DRR) might not be referred back to the court for review.
HMPPS has very recently (June 2025) updated its Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR)
Guidance (including DRR Reviews Guidance) to help create a standard approach across
England and Wales.
The updated Guidance will ensure a consistent approach is used during DRR Reviews and
following sentencing to a DRR and also simplify the process by providing clarity of roles and
responsibilities and an improved DRR Review template. The aim of the updated Guidance is
to improve efficiency; speed up referrals into drug treatment; increase the number of Order
completions and increase judiciary confidence in the Orders.
The update Guidance documents are available to all Probation staff on a comprehensive
computer database known as EQuiP (Excellence & Quality in Process) which provides easy
access to operational processes and procedures.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention. I trust that this response provides
assurance that action is being taken to address the issues you raised.
Yours faithfully,
Head of Operations
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths, and how often a new one appears.
What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text
Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.
These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.